Great fun article, Colin.
I love it when people can think outside the norm and embrace something just because they like it. Why be like everybody else?

They are NOT thinking outside the norm!

They are simply using what was the norm 30 years ago under the guise of being different.

Do YOU remember the rooms full of manual typewriters hammering away? The secretarial pools? The "auditory experience" was terrible.

Those were the norm and, frankly, they were awful.

It's a quirky article but is romanticizes and makes nostalgic processes that were dreary back then. Writers used to justify their romance with the typewriter even though the hated the damn things and saw them as a necessary evil.

The economics of this is 100% funded by the fact that the equipment is dirt cheap salvage which consumers, businesses and government now find inefficient to use. Using Super 8 for example, is staggeringly more expensive than other mediums and it is ONLY made possible by the cost differential. The funds to process are only there because of the rock-bottom salvage costs of the cameras. This is why it is artists using disposable income are the ones gravitating to older technology. They are using the detritus of past economic and technological cycles can calling it an expressive medium whereas once it was blood and guts, money-making enterprise. Let's not put on rose coloured glasses. If she makes a terrific film, excellent. That's what counts. Making the process itself an artistic statement is a personal choice, one made possible by prior economic subsidy.

And this quote from the article makes me laugh:

"In a sense, the digital world can only deal with things that can be quantified, says Milne, 38, who has an engineering background. "So things like experience, even spirituality and religion -- all that stuff that we can't push into a rational, logical framework, sort of drops off the map."

You have got to be kidding me.

When personal computers came out they were seen as a means of humanizing ("Hello. Welcome to Macintosh") what for most was a deeply dehumanizing experience, and that was white collar analog information management. People went blind loading fonts into prepress machines. Hard hammering typewriters contributed to deafness. Computers were seen as liberating. Less so in hindsight, but that takes nothing away from the sheer drudgery beforehand.

And an engineer should know that analog is just as much about quantification as digital.

I have no problem with using analog devices in "new and creative ways", but to assert nonsense about some sort of spiritual connection is absurd. It was never that way in the past. In fact, corporate managers were the ones who tried to "liberate" the workplace in such ways against the average person who used the equipment. The guy in the corner suite dictated to a typist.

It's like people romanticizing haystacks but they would never get in a field themselves and pitchfork one into being to foster a greater connection to the land. It's always better when someone else, preferably in another country or our hard working farming ancestors, had to do the really hard work.

These hipsters have not only short memories, but they are creating their own media-infused ones that are fundamentally inaccurate compared to the historical record. There's also no shortage of lo-fi elitism. Instead of just appreciating the image, we get this:

"With film, "there's a lot more communication between photographer and subject," he says. "I find it can be more of a collaboration."

Prove it by looking at the image. Prove it. Because the next day, no one will be able to tell. Nor will they in 10 or 100 years. Therefore it's not about the art, it's about the artist's self-justification. Each to their own, but at least have the courage to call it what it is.

"In a sense, the digital world can only deal with things that can be quantified, says Milne, 38, who has an engineering background. "So things like experience, even spirituality and religion -- all that stuff that we can't push into a rational, logical framework, sort of drops off the map."

You have got to be kidding me.

Of course. In this situation, he's learning about the reporter and testing their boundaries of guilability and understanding and seeing if the reporter is at all rational or logical. Some reporters can smell the BS, others more "right brain" reporters suck this stuff right up. I'm in the tech business and have been interviewed frequently for local newspaper articles about technology and engineering matters. It's useful to determine how well the reporter understands things, whether they are left or right brain for example, as you have to choose your words so they can interpret their news source right. Some rare and harmless and obscure BS'ing will also determine how well the reporter checks facts. Doesn't have to be done every story; just once usually.

The original "renaissance men" had a logical framework for religion right along with their science; easy for them, but their respective theocracies wouldn't buy into the science part of them so quickly. Back then, people would die from misunderstandings. Now, if your reporter doesn't understand the framework, you just get a crappy article.

Last edited by jp498; 02-29-2012 at 10:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.

And for the record, I happen to know the photographer quoted. He does indeed have a connection to his subjects...a statement pretty apparent when you look at his work. Have you done so? That sort of quality comes from actually creating work...not sitting on an internet forum crapping all over people and subjects you know little about. Kind of like that pitchfork and haystack analogy you poetically referenced.

I know one is not supposed to 'feed the internet troll', but an egregious statement is an egregious statement. Splash some cold water on your face, go outside and feel the sun on your face. And hey, why not bring a film camera with you, while you're at it. What you might want to avoid doing, is dumping on a dedicated film photographer...**on a forum devoted to analog film shooting*. Good lord....

"Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got their shoes."

Prove it by looking at the image. Prove it. Because the next day, no one will be able to tell. Nor will they in 10 or 100 years. Therefore it's not about the art, it's about the artist's self-justification. Each to their own, but at least have the courage to call it what it is.

They are simply using what was the norm 30 years ago under the guise of being different.

Do YOU remember the rooms full of manual typewriters hammering away? The secretarial pools? The "auditory experience" was terrible.

Those were the norm and, frankly, they were awful.

It's a quirky article but is romanticizes and makes nostalgic processes that were dreary back then. Writers used to justify their romance with the typewriter even though the hated the damn things and saw them as a necessary evil.

The economics of this is 100% funded by the fact that the equipment is dirt cheap salvage which consumers, businesses and government now find inefficient to use. Using Super 8 for example, is staggeringly more expensive than other mediums and it is ONLY made possible by the cost differential. The funds to process are only there because of the rock-bottom salvage costs of the cameras. This is why it is artists using disposable income are the ones gravitating to older technology. They are using the detritus of past economic and technological cycles can calling it an expressive medium whereas once it was blood and guts, money-making enterprise. Let's not put on rose coloured glasses. If she makes a terrific film, excellent. That's what counts. Making the process itself an artistic statement is a personal choice, one made possible by prior economic subsidy.

And this quote from the article makes me laugh:

"In a sense, the digital world can only deal with things that can be quantified, says Milne, 38, who has an engineering background. "So things like experience, even spirituality and religion -- all that stuff that we can't push into a rational, logical framework, sort of drops off the map."

You have got to be kidding me.

When personal computers came out they were seen as a means of humanizing ("Hello. Welcome to Macintosh") what for most was a deeply dehumanizing experience, and that was white collar analog information management. People went blind loading fonts into prepress machines. Hard hammering typewriters contributed to deafness. Computers were seen as liberating. Less so in hindsight, but that takes nothing away from the sheer drudgery beforehand.

And an engineer should know that analog is just as much about quantification as digital.

I have no problem with using analog devices in "new and creative ways", but to assert nonsense about some sort of spiritual connection is absurd. It was never that way in the past. In fact, corporate managers were the ones who tried to "liberate" the workplace in such ways against the average person who used the equipment. The guy in the corner suite dictated to a typist.

It's like people romanticizing haystacks but they would never get in a field themselves and pitchfork one into being to foster a greater connection to the land. It's always better when someone else, preferably in another country or our hard working farming ancestors, had to do the really hard work.

These hipsters have not only short memories, but they are creating their own media-infused ones that are fundamentally inaccurate compared to the historical record. There's also no shortage of lo-fi elitism. Instead of just appreciating the image, we get this:

"With film, "there's a lot more communication between photographer and subject," he says. "I find it can be more of a collaboration."

Prove it by looking at the image. Prove it. Because the next day, no one will be able to tell. Nor will they in 10 or 100 years. Therefore it's not about the art, it's about the artist's self-justification. Each to their own, but at least have the courage to call it what it is.

"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh